EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD)
WRITTEN AND EDITED BY:
Elisabeth Corell
Wagaki Mwangi
Steve Wise
. FRENCH TRANSLATION BY:
Mongi Gadhoum .
Managing Editor
Langston James Goree VI "Kimo"
A SUMMARY REPORT ON THE SEVENTH SESSION OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION TO
COMBAT DESERTIFICATION
Vol. 4 No. 75
Monday, 21 August 1995
SUMMARY OF THE SEVENTH SESSION OF THE INC FOR THE
CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION:
7-17 AUGUST 1995
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the
Convention to Combat Desertification (INCD) met for its
seventh session in Nairobi, Kenya, from 7-17 August 1995.
Unlike the previous six sessions, this meeting took place
almost without event. With the Convention completed, the
INCD has now embarked on activities that will facilitate the
first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. During the
course of the session, delegates reviewed the status of
ratification and implementation of the resolution on Urgent
Action for Africa, as well as actions in other regions. The
Working Groups also began their work, tackling such issues
as the designation of a permanent secretariat and
arrangements for its functioning, identification of an
organization to house the global mechanism, draft financial
rules, programme and budget, the Committee on Science and
Technology, draft Rules of Procedure for the Conference of
the Parties, and Communication of Information and Review of
Implementation. While there clearly remains concern about
the periodicity and length of future sessions of the INCD,
it is clear that the INCD has become an effective forum for
preparing for the first meeting of the Conference of the
Parties of the Convention to Combat Desertification.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE INCD
Desertification affects about one-sixth of the world’s
population, 70 percent of all drylands, and one-quarter of
the total land area in the world. The most obvious impact of
desertification, in addition to widespread poverty, is the
degradation of 3.3 billion hectares of the total area of
rangeland, decline in soil fertility and soil structure, and
the degradation of irrigated cropland.
The Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) was formally
adopted on 17 June 1994, and opened for signature at a
ceremony in Paris on 14-15 October 1994. This first post-Rio
sustainable development convention is notable for its
innovative approach in recognizing: the physical, biological
and socio-economic aspects of desertification; the
importance of redirecting technology transfer so that it is
demand driven; and the involvement of local populations in
the development of national action programmes. The core of
the Convention is the development of national and
subregional/ regional action programmes to combat
desertification. These action programmes are to be developed
by national governments in close cooperation with donors,
local populations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
The Convention currently has 107 signatories and has been
ratified by five countries. The Convention will enter into
force 90 days after the receipt of the 50th instrument of
ratification.
While the idea of a convention to combat desertification was
discussed during the UNCED preparatory process, it was only
in Rio where language was adopted requesting the General
Assembly to establish an intergovernmental negotiating
committee for the purpose of negotiating a convention. The
General Assembly, during its 47th session in 1992, adopted
resolution 47/188 calling for the establishment of the INCD,
with the aim of finalizing the Convention by June 1994.
The organizational session of the INCD was held in January
1993. At that meeting, delegates elected Bo Kjelle’n
(Sweden) Chair of the Committee, elected the remaining
members of the Bureau, adopted the rules of procedure, set
the schedule of meetings and established two working groups.
FIRST SESSION
The first session of the INCD was held in Nairobi, Kenya,
from 24 May - 3 June 1993. The first week of the session
focused on the sharing of technical information and
assessments on various aspects of drought and
desertification. Divided into seven sections, the
information-sharing segment provided an opportunity for
scientists, technical experts, delegates and NGOs to share
relevant experiences and learn more about the scourge of
desertification and its global dimensions. The second week
focused on the structure and elements to be contained in the
Convention. Delegates also exchanged ideas about the
Convention and its objectives.
Negotiations stalled in Nairobi over the issue of related
regional instruments, while still giving priority action to
Africa. Kjelle’n proposed that an instrument on Africa, such
as an annex, be negotiated once the main structure of the
Convention had been defined, and that similar instruments
for other regions be negotiated subsequently. This proposal
met with resistance from several countries in regions other
than Africa. They felt that their own problems with
desertification deserved attention and that similar
instruments for their regions should be negotiated
simultaneously with the instrument for Africa. The decision
was deferred.
SECOND SESSION
The second session of the INCD met in Geneva from 13-24
September 1993. The Committee considered the compilation
text of the Convention prepared by the Secretariat and
agreed on the future programme of work of the Committee,
including the elaboration of regional instruments for
Africa, Asia and Latin America. At the conclusion of the
second session, the two working groups completed their
discussion of the Secretariat’s compilation text and
identified areas of convergence and divergence. There
appeared to be consensus on the need for implementable
commitments that are central to the Convention and
articulated at different levels (national, regional and
international). Delegates stressed the need for a public
awareness strategy, improved education, and increased
cooperation and coordination between the North and the
South, South and South, and among donors.
THIRD SESSION
The third session of the INCD was held at UN Headquarters in
New York from 17-28 January 1994. At this session the two
working groups focused on the draft negotiating text of the
Convention that was prepared by the Secretariat. By the end
of the two-week session, the working groups were able to
complete at least one and sometimes two readings of each
draft article. Progress was made in shaping the Convention
and in identifying the areas of convergence and divergence.
The INCD also discussed the regional instrument for Africa
for the first time. After an initial discussion of the
nature of this instrument and its relationship to the
Convention as a whole, delegates requested the Secretariat
to prepare a draft text for consideration at the fourth
session.
FOURTH SESSION
The fourth session of the INCD was held in Geneva from 21-31
March 1994. The two working groups continued negotiating the
draft text of the Convention. By the conclusion of the
session the substantive problems that remained included: the
need for an article on principles in the text; all matters
related to financial resources and mechanisms; categories of
countries; subsidiary bodies; reservations or exceptions
open to the Parties; and the obligations of a withdrawing
Party.
The fourth session was also the first time that delegates
formally considered the Regional Implementation Annex for
Africa. In general, developed countries thought that the
annex was too long and contained a number of articles that
were better suited to or already contained in the main
Convention. The Africans felt that the level of detail was
essential, otherwise the instrument would not achieve its
objective of providing priority treatment for Africa. The
Asian and Latin American regional groups also produced their
own draft regional implementation instruments. Although
these annexes were not discussed in detail, initial reaction
was positive.
FIFTH SESSION
The fifth session of the INCD was held in Paris from 6-17
June 1994. During this session, delegates worked through
many long nights to reach agreement on the remaining
bracketed text in the Convention and to finalize four
regional implementation annexes for Africa, Latin America
and the Caribbean, Asia, and the Northern Mediterranean.
They also adopted resolutions that recommended urgent action
for Africa and interim arrangements for the period between
adoption of the Convention and its entry into force, which
could take at least two years. There were times during this
session that delegates thought they would never reach
agreement on the financial provisions of the Convention.
After three all-night sessions capped by a closing Plenary
that did not even begin until 4:00 am, the Convention was
finally adopted.
SIXTH SESSION
The sixth session of the INCD was held in New York from 9-18
January 1995. While this session was more of an
organizational session than anything else, it served two
important purposes. First, the Committee reached agreement
on the work programme for the interim period and the
mandates of the two working groups and the Plenary, which
will carry out the post-agreement negotiations that will
push forward the development of the Convention and its
implementation. Second, it alerted delegates, the Bureau and
the Interim Secretariat to some of the challenges that lie
ahead. These challenges include: reaffirming the equal
status of the Convention with other environmental
conventions; implementation of the resolution on urgent
action for Africa; raising awareness; popular participation;
preparation for the first Conference of the Parties (COP);
scientific and technical cooperation during the interim
period; and funding.
REPORT OF THE SEVENTH SESSION
The seventh session of the INCD opened on the afternoon of
Monday, 7 August 1995. During the two-week session, four
plenary sessions were held and the two Working Groups held
their first meetings to prepare for the first Conference of
the Parties.
During the opening Plenary, INCD Chair Bo Kjelle’n (Sweden)
outlined a tentative agenda for the two weeks and said he
hoped to conclude the work a day early. The delegates
adopted the agenda and organization of work (A/AC.241/32).
The Plenary also accredited another 10 non-governmental
organizations (A/AC.241/9/Add.9 and Add.10).
Kjelle’n then made his opening statement in which he noted
that conclusions of the CSD’s third session represent a
clear political signal that the Convention is integrated
with the follow-up to Rio and that it emphasizes connections
between dryland issues, land use, food security and socio-
economic factors. He said that discussion of a Permanent
Secretariat and Rules of Procedure were complex issues that
could benefit from the work of other conventions. The Global
Mechanism, articles on scientific and technical cooperation,
the bottom-up approach and local participation and action
are important innovations beyond this Convention with
respect to development practice and theory.
Executive Secretary Hama Arba Diallo reported that 107
States and regional economic integration organizations have
signed the Convention. Five States, Cape Verde, Egypt,
Mexico, the Netherlands and Senegal, have deposited their
instruments of ratification and a number of countries have
initiated the ratification process. He reported that the
Interim Secretariat has compiled seven documents,
A/AC.241/33 to A/AC.241/39, covering the issues the
Committee intends to address.
UNEP Executive Director Elizabeth Dowdeswell said UNEP would
be honored to host the Secretariat, but feels it is not the
best equipped to house the Global Mechanism. It is better
able to contribute to the development of a scientific
knowledge base and indicators, push for land degradation to
be considered within the main GEF criteria, identify,
evaluate and publish success stories in combating
desertification and support the Committee on Science and
Technology.
UNDP/UNSO Director Sam Nyambi, on behalf of UNDP
Administrator James Gustave Speth, said the agency is
available to host the Global Mechanism. UNSO now supports
all affected countries, not only Africa, and the
organization has changed its name to Office to Combat
Desertification and Drought, but retains its acronym.
IFAD noted that national action programmes (NAPs) should not
be shopping lists, but dynamic plans that continuously
evolve as experience is gained.
Spain, on behalf of the European Union, said the EU attaches
highest importance to the CCD and encouraged speeding the
process of entry into force. The EU may try to turn in all
of its ratifications at once. Switzerland, speaking on
behalf of Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Norway,
Switzerland, Turkey and the United States, stated that these
countries are firmly committed to effective implementation
of the CCD. Their national authorities are working to ensure
speedy ratification of the Convention. Pakistan, on behalf
of the G-77 and China, stated that it views the Global
Mechanism as an institution to mobilize resources for the
Convention. Cuba said its government is prepared to
cooperate in scientific and technological matters, while
Bangladesh reported that its government had decided to
ratify the Convention.
CONGAC, on behalf of the NGOs, emphasized the importance of
the funds of the Global Mechanism reaching the grassroots
level. She added that the necessary resources should be
provided to enable the involvement of NGOs and community-
based organizations (CBOs) in the decision-making processes
and development of NAPs.
STATUS OF RATIFICATION
The Executive Secretary, Hama Arba Diallo said five
countries, Cape Verde, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and
Senegal had deposited their instruments of ratification. In
addition to these, the Secretariat has information that
Tunisia has completed the national procedures, and that
documents are on their way. The Secretariat is also waiting
for communication from countries that are in the process of
signing the instruments.
Mauritania, Mali, and Lebanon said they expect to ratify the
Convention by the end of 1995, while France, Peru, Germany,
Portugal and India expect to do so by the end of 1996.
Although Iran, Colombia and Morocco have initiated the
ratification process, they were not specific on when they
expect to complete it.
URGENT ACTION FOR AFRICA AND ACTION IN OTHER REGIONS
This agenda item was considered during two plenary sessions.
The first session was devoted exclusively to reports on the
implementation of the Resolution on Urgent Action for
Africa. The second session, which was held during the second
week, provided an opportunity to report on the work done in
other regions based on the regional implementation annexes.
The countries covered by the various regional implementation
annexes held a half-day of informal consultations prior to
the Plenary. During the closing Plenary, Kjelle’n circulated
a paper containing his conclusions on this subject
(A/AC.241/CRP.15).
URGENT ACTION FOR AFRICA: Kjelle’n said the discussion was
aimed at enabling delegates to learn from African
experiences, using Mali, Namibia and the CILSS region as the
major examples. Those countries gave detailed accounts of
their activities. Amb. Diallo also reviewed the Interim
Secretariat’s role in national and regional activities in
Africa, including: facilitating two subregional meetings and
national seminars in 13 African countries; preparing
information kits and a simplified version of the Convention;
and participating in the celebration of the World Day to
Combat Desertification. The environment ministers of the
Central African Republic and Senegal and a Vice-Minister
from Eritrea also presented statements.
Reporting on behalf of the countries covered by the Regional
Implementation Annex for Africa, Uganda welcomed the
priority accorded the region and assistance provided so far.
He stated that focusing on Africa does not take away the
global nature of the Convention.
In addition to other activities, Niger, Egypt, Morocco and
Uganda have held various types of awareness raising
workshops. Kenya, Ethiopia, Mauritania and Cape Verde also
outlined the different activities they have undertaken. The
CILSS, IGADD, UMA and SADC subregions reported on the
progress they had made, especially in initiating action
towards the preparation of the subregional action
programmes. Niger, Kenya and Uganda are working on the
ratification process. Benin and Mali expect to ratify the
Convention by the end of 1995. ENDA, on behalf of the NGOs,
and the OAU also reported on their regional activities.
Developed countries also demonstrated their support in
Africa. Spain, on behalf of the EU, pointed out that
desertification-related projects receive a large portion of
the total amount of aid allocated by the EU for development
projects. The Netherlands said its early ratification of the
CCD demonstrates its commitment. The country will co-finance
the NGO network RIOD for three years. Australia said it has
set up a US$250,000 fund for activities within the Eastern
and Southern African regions, with which it shares many
similarities. France can: assist in research; support CILSS
member countries with funding and facilitation for action
plans; assist with information, observation and monitoring;
and help to mobilize NGOs. Switzerland reported that it was
implementing information and awareness activities and
supporting NGOs in various regions. The Club du Sahel will
support a dialogue in November for regional cooperation on
peace and sustainable development. Canada is supporting
NAPs, research, information systems, and progress
indicators, as well as awareness raising in Africa. Sweden
reported that it had supported 30 projects related to
desertification during the last ten years and, in
consultation with IGADD, has developed four thematic
programmes.
ACTION IN OTHER REGIONS: Regional Implementation Annex for
Latin America — Several delegates, including Colombia,
Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and Mexico, underscored the need to
support action in the Latin American and Caribbean region.
Colombia, on behalf of the group, said in view of the
growing problem of desertification in the region, there is
need to undertake action now to avoid the necessity for
urgent action later. He added that there is a trend to focus
on one single region to the detriment of others. A workshop
is planned for 28 August to 3 September 1995, to discuss and
examine the implementation of the regional annex. He hoped
there will be an indication of support for the upcoming
conference to guarantee the international nature of the CCD.
Bolivia, Brazil, Peru, Chile and Argentina reported that
they had started work on their national action programmes
and outlined some of the activities entailed in the
programmes. Bolivia said it hoped to ratify the Convention
by the end of August. Cuba said a ministerial environmental
meeting scheduled for September in Havana will provide an
opportunity to insert language supporting CCD activities in
the conference document. Mexico supported the need to
convene a meeting to assess regional progress related to
action plans already underway.
Regional Implementation Annex for Asia — India, reporting on
behalf of countries covered by the Regional Implementation
Annex for Asia, said he hoped to present an action-oriented
concept paper at INCD-8. The Asian group will hold expert
meetings before the next session. China also reported on the
activities it had initiated. The Russian Federation,
Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan called for financial support to
redress the problems related to drought and desertification
in their region. The Republic of Korea said it was committed
to the implementation of the Convention.
Turkey said the conference held in Almeri’a, Spain, from 26-
28 June 1995, established a dialogue that will facilitate
the coordination of NAPs. He said all regional annex groups
should be represented on the Bureau. Governments should
designate a focal point for implementation of NAPs. Regional
information networks should also be established. Israel
described a Middle East joint subregional project with
Jordan and the Palestinian autonomous region to seek
development options without the risk of desertification.
While reporting on their activities, Lebanon and Armenia
said they expected to ratify the CCD by October and December
1995, respectively. Iran reported that during its last
session, ESCAP supported the strengthening of the Asian
regional network on training and research in desertification
and provided funds for its office in Tehran. ESCAP has also
requested the convening of a high-level meeting to develop a
regional programme of action for the network. TEMA, a
Turkish NGO, said the NGOs have been involved in awareness
raising.
SITUATION AS REGARDS EXTRABUDGETARY FUNDS
On Monday, 14 August 1995, Executive Secretary Arba Diallo
presented the situation as regards extrabudgetary funds, as
contained in documents A/AC.241/41 and A/AC.241/41/Add.1.
He said that for greater transparency, the document
contained a report on the use of funds provided through the
regular budget of the UN. These expenditures were disbursed
in accordance with the programme budget implications (PBI)
statement. The report also highlights expenditures from the
Trust and Voluntary Funds, as well as the staffing
situation. He said the situation regarding staffing was
precarious. The six staff members funded from extrabudgetary
resources have contracts that are linked to specific
government contributions that are running out. The Voluntary
Fund, through which participants from developing countries
are funded to attend the INCD sessions, is almost exhausted.
Several delegations said the document was transparent and
well prepared, however, Canada would like to see the costs
listed by activity.
A few countries made financial pledges. Germany will provide
DM70,000 for the participation of developing country
delegates in future sessions of the INCD. Japan is committed
to providing US$700,000 for both the Trust and Voluntary
Funds. However, its voluntary contributions should fund LDC
delegates. Israel pledged US$3,000 and the European Union
pledged ECU50,000. Canada said it will continue funding the
legal officer for another year and will donate funds for the
participation of LDCs. France said it will soon pay the
FF300,000 pledged at INCD-6 for the participation of LDC
delegates. Sweden will continue to support the work of the
Secretariat and contribute to the Voluntary Fund for LDC
delegates. Mauritania said it was considering making a
contribution to the Trust Fund. Egypt, supported by Benin,
urged the Secretariat to look into the possibility of
tapping into private funding sources.
Some developing country delegates expressed concern about
the Secretariat’s funding situation, noting that this
differed from the situation of other secretariats. Others
drew attention to the need to fund developing countries
delegates as well, not just those from the LDCs. Algeria
called for the provision of funds to affected developing
countries to enable them to prepare their reports for the
first COP.
The question of funding drew greater attention towards the
end of the two week session, which resulted in protracted
debate during the closing plenary, after the Chair presented
two papers: Conclusions by the Chairman
(A/AC.241/CRP.15/Add.1) and the Chairman’s revised proposal
for a draft decision (A/AC.241/L.27) on dates and venues of
future sessions of the INCD.
WORKING GROUP I
Working Group I, chaired by Mourad Ahmia (Algeria),
addressed four issues: identification of an organization to
house the Global Mechanism; designation of a Permanent
Secretariat and arrangements for its functioning; draft
financial rules of the COP, its subsidiary bodies and the
Permanent Secretariat; and programme and budget.
DESIGNATION OF A PERMANENT SECRETARIAT AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR
ITS FUNCTIONING
Delegates considered document A/AC.241/34, which analyzes
two separate but related issues: administrative arrangements
for the functioning of the Permanent Secretariat (PS) and
its physical location. The document requests that
organizations interested in providing administrative
arrangements and countries wishing to host the Secretariat
should submit their written offers, using criteria contained
in the two annexes to A/AC.241/34. Germany, Kenya, Spain and
Switzerland have so far indicated their interest.
There was general consensus to follow the Secretariat’s
proposals, but deadlines should be set for written
submissions and when the Secretariat should report back to
the INCD. Some delegations also suggested that the two
processes of identifying the organization and the location
be considered separately. Morocco, Spain and the WMO
proposed additional criteria to be included in the annexes.
During debate on the amendments to Annex II (categories of
information which might be requested from countries
interested in hosting the Permanent Secretariat), Germany
proposed deleting all amendments to the selection criteria
because each would give advantage to one candidate or
another. There was general agreement on this proposal,
except regarding paragraph 10 of Annex II, which addresses
contributions from the host government to help defray
operating costs. The amendment to this criterion added host
country financial support for the Permanent Secretariat as a
factor in selection. Some developing country delegates felt
this would discriminate against poor countries’ offers to
host the PS. Others felt that host country contributions
were covered elsewhere in the CCD. Delegates agreed to keep
the amendment, but it now refers to “support” in general,
rather than specifically to financial support.
Uganda, on behalf of the G-77 and China, presented a draft
decision that focuses on the administrative arrangements.
The decision would: suggest that the PS should be linked to
the Secretariat of the UN; invite all international
institutions to support the PS including by secondment of
staff; request that the GA transfer the financial costs of
the core staff and operating expenses of the Interim
Secretariat to the PS; and that the GA should consider
providing conference services for the COP and its subsidiary
bodies. These arrangements should be reviewed at COP-3.
Although several delegations considered the G-77 and China’s
proposal “interesting” and worthy of consideration, they
viewed the recommendations as premature. G-77 members argued
that this was necessary in view of the fact that the CCD may
enter into force in 1996 and the 1995 General Assembly will
consider the biennial work programme that would cover CCD
activities.
The Group agreed to delay consideration of the G-77 and
China draft decision and adopted A/AC.241/WG.I(VII)/L.1 in
its place. The decision retains the G-77 and China draft
decision for future consideration. It also “requests the
Secretary-General of the UN to submit to the Committee, at
its next session, a report on the nature of administrative
arrangements that can be provided and on support from the UN
to the Permanent Secretariat without being fully integrated
in the work programme or management structure of any
particular programme.”
Delegates also adopted a draft decision on the location of
the Permanent Secretariat (A/AC.241/WG.I(VII)/L.5) inviting
interested governments to submit written offers to the
Interim Secretariat.
IDENTIFICATION OF AN ORGANIZATION TO HOUSE THE GLOBAL
MECHANISM
The Chair introduced the documents including the request for
proposals to host the Global Mechanism (GM) and replies
received from IFAD, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank
(A/AC.241/33) and the reply of the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) (A/AC.241/33/Add.1).
Uganda, on behalf of the G-77 and China, supported by
Guinea, Benin, Mali, Senegal, the Philippines, Lesotho,
Ethiopia, Bolivia and Syria, said the proposals to host the
GM responded to insufficient guidance with limited
information. He said the INCD should request further
information from interested organizations. Spain, on behalf
of the EU, supported by Switzerland and Australia, said the
GM is not a fund in itself but a facilitator of existing
finances. Delegates must decide on modalities and the GM’s
detailed functions, taking into account the resources and
capacity of interested organizations.
Senegal called for a study to clarify some vague aspects of
the GM. For the GM to only forward information is not
enough; it must also play a role in ensuring necessary
funds, even if it is not called fundraising. Tunisia,
supported by Ethiopia, expressed concern over the discussion
of modalities of the GM only as facilitator and clearing
house for financial resources. China, supported by Algeria
and Iran, said the GM’s function is to ensure affected
countries are easily able to obtain financing. Delegates
cannot consider the GM without its role as a funding
mechanism. The US said the Interim Secretariat, with input
from a small informal group, should write a guidance
document to deal with the scope, functions and modalities of
the GM, drawing from relevant convention provisions.
The IFAD said the GM’s role can be cast as low or high
potential. A minimalist GM would identify resource gaps but
would not be able to do anything more. The high potential
approach would encompass active efforts to mobilize,
catalyze and leverage financial resources. UNDP said it
needed indications from the Working Group on the role and
functions of the GM. He hoped the selection would not be a
bidding process but an interagency partnership. ELCI, on
behalf of NGOs, said the GM should mobilize funds for a
process approach, not just projects, including awareness
raising and popular participation.
Mauritania called for IFAD to try a high intensity proposal,
but he added that a quick decision was not necessary. Benin
said it was not the time to assess specific offers. Morocco
said existing offers could provide ideas for defining and
selecting the GM.
The G-77 and China submitted a draft decision
(A/AC.241/WG.I(VII)/L.2), which invites institutions to
transmit additional and complementary information. Areas of
additional information include modalities of operations, the
relationship between the COP and host institution, and
financial mobilization and accountability according to the
institution’s governing bodies. It also mandates a review of
the GM according to a Secretariat report.
In the end, delegates adopted a revised version of the G-77
and China draft decision, A/AC.241/WG.I(VII)/L.2/Rev.1. The
decision notes the responses by potential host organizations
and welcomes the positive character of UNDP and IFAD’s
responses. It also requests that the Interim Secretariat
should prepare: a compilation of references to the GM in
Convention articles and annexes; a compilation of inputs
from member States; and a preliminary draft list of
selection criteria for a host institution. The decision
invites interested organizations to continue consulting with
their governing bodies and plans a review of the GM
selection for INCD-8.
DRAFT FINANCIAL RULES
Delegates considered the draft financial rules of COP, its
subsidiary bodies and the Permanent Secretariat, as
contained in A/AC.241/35. The Secretariat noted that: the
method of adopting the budget and determining the scales of
assessment and size of working capital are political issues;
the currency in which budget estimates are constituted and
denominated needs to be determined carefully due to exchange
fluctuations; a structure of three funds would be best; and
a way to reimburse the administrative costs incurred by the
host institution has been provided.
Spain, on behalf of the EU, said details of the document
should be dealt with at INCD-8 by a group of financial
experts provided by delegations.
Currency of denomination: Mauritania, Canada, Lebanon,
Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Niger prefer the use of the
US dollar. Canada, supported by others, said this may also
be determined by the location of the Permanent Secretariat.
Method of adoption: There was protracted debate on whether
consensus, or a two-thirds majority vote should be used.
Bolivia noted that Rule 2(e) of the draft Rules of Procedure
for the COP provides for decision-making by consensus, but
is not specific in Rule 2(g) relating to the adoption of the
programme and budget. The UK said there is an emerging trend
in recent environmental conventions to use consensus, mainly
due to the size of their budgets. This was done for the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Antigua and
Barbuda disagreed, noting that the decision on consensus the
UK was referring to related to the financial rules governing
the financial mechanism of the FCCC, not the financial rules
of the COP and its subsidiary bodies. The issue of consensus
versus majority decisions appeared in other areas of the
document, including the annex language on scope, on
establishing a capital reserve, regarding the scale of
contributions and on the budget. Mauritania, supported by
Benin, suggested adding language that the budget be “adopted
by consensus wherever possible. In the absence of consensus
the two-thirds majority would be needed for adoption.”
Germany, the US and the UK said the budget should be adopted
by consensus. The US, the UK and Germany added “by
consensus” to the annex on a capital reserve. Benin
bracketed the change.
Transfers between budget lines: Several delegations
questioned who authorize transfers, under what rules and
conditions transfers should be permitted, and whether limits
should be set for amounts moved between budget lines.
Types of funds: Delegates discussed whether three funds or
one fund with separate accounts would be more economical.
They also debated whether all developing countries’
participation or only that of LDCs should be supported, and
by which funds. Norway, supported by Sweden, said support
for participation should be for LDC delegates only. The
Philippines said other developing countries should be
covered as well. Benin suggested that the text should
specify which funds would provide assistance to developing
countries and NGOs and that a reference to Africa should be
added.
Working capital reserve: Mauritania, the Congo, Benin and
Uganda supported the idea of a working capital reserve, as
it has a precedent in the FCCC. Canada said a capital
reserve would have to be negotiated, but an alternative
would be for the host organization to have bridging funds.
Scale of contributions: Several countries, including the
Congo, Bolivia, Colombia, Bangladesh, and Antigua and
Barbuda, said Parties should make contributions based on the
UN scale of assessment, as was the case with the FCCC.
Switzerland, the US and Japan added the word “voluntary”
before annex references to contributions and “indicative”
before references to the scale. Other delegations bracketed
the changes. Some delegations said that language on “other
contributions” covered voluntary contributions, so the main
language should not be phrased as voluntary. The US and the
UK said the COP should determine the scale by consensus.
Several delegations bracketed the change. Colombia proposed
a ceiling on contributions of 30% of the total and limits on
developing country contributions. Japan bracketed the
maximum contribution.
The Working Group adopted a draft decision on financial
rules (A/AC.241/WG.I(VII)/L.3), inviting a revised draft of
the rules from the Interim Secretariat.
PROGRAMME AND BUDGET
The Secretariat introduced the document (A/AC.241/36) and
its annex of sample tables, noting that it was an outline.
Budget figures and more specific programme categories could
be filled in once decisions are made on a programme of work.
Several delegations suggested additions or changes to the
sample tables provided, including the addition of an
organizational chart explaining the number of posts in the
Secretariat. Delegates debated whether travel costs should
be paid for developing countries or only LDCs, with donor
countries proposing greater restrictions and developing
countries noting that a decision was already in place on the
subject. The Group agreed that travel costs would be
supported for “delegates of developing countries, in
particular LDCs.”
The draft decision on the Programme and Budget
(A/AC.241/WG.1(VII)/L.4) was adopted. It invites the Interim
Secretariat to prepare a revised version of the document.
Delegates agreed that written submissions could be included
in the revised draft but should be indicated as not having
been previously discussed by the INCD.
WORKING GROUP II
Working Group II, chaired by Takao Shibata (Japan),
addressed: organization of scientific and technological
cooperation; draft rules of procedure of the COP; and
procedures for communication of information and review of
implementation.
THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The informal paper prepared by a group of OECD scientific
advisers on the terms of reference of the Committee on
Science and Technology (CST), the roster of independent
experts and ad hoc panels, was used as the basis for
discussion, after which the Secretariat compiled a new
paper, A/AC.241/WG.II(VII)/CRP.1, including the conclusions
of the informal discussions. Part of this paper will serve
as the negotiating text at INCD-8.
General terms of reference of the CST: Developed country
delegations said the Committee on Science and Technology
(CST) should provide advice, evaluate institutions and
networks, recommend areas of research appropriate to support
the CCD and evaluate the scientific aspects of
implementation. Although open to all, the CST needs a
smaller Bureau or core group to direct its operations. The
COP should specify criteria for the roster of experts,
possibly including membership in international scientific
associations, degrees, and field experience. Others
emphasized that the CST should not conduct or fund new
research. It should provide advice to the COP and distribute
information based on the past 20 years of research. The CST
should be multidisciplinary and diverse, but its size and
cost should be kept to a minimum -- one member per Party.
Developing country delegations did not want to restrict or
limit CST membership. It must be open, multidisciplinary and
contain regional representation. Requiring international
scientific membership would be discriminatory to developing
country scientists.
Functions: There were a number of conflicting proposals
regarding sections on evaluation of networks and
institutions, research and review activities, technology
transfer, and evaluation and exchange of information. It was
finally suggested that all these paragraphs be merged into
one section called “Evaluation.”
Structure and Membership: There was general agreement that
CST membership should be limited, drawn from representatives
of the Parties to the CCD, and multidisciplinary. Experts
also can be designated by governments. Some delegates
suggested the inclusion of sectoral groups such as women,
regional and international organizations, and NGOs. There
seemed to be consensus on the need for a Bureau for the CST.
Transparency: One delegation suggested deleting the
reference to the accessibility of the work of the CST to all
those who are interested, because it would be too costly for
the CST to publish its work.
Programme and budget: There was no agreement on whether the
CST should develop a plan of action and a budget, which
should be part of the overall budget of the COP. It is
unclear how the plan of action can be separated from the
budget. Some suggested that the COP should make available
sufficient funds for the CST to enable it to carry out its
activities, while others stressed that the CST should not
give any directives to the COP.
Sessions of the CST: Delegates discussed the timing of CST
meetings relative to those of the COP. It should be possible
for the CST to meet just before the COP meetings. Others
questioned whether the CST should be presenting reports at
COP meetings.
The CST and the roster of experts: It was proposed that the
CST shall advise the COP on the structure and membership of
the Roster of Independent Experts. Some delegations
suggested deleting this, since the INCD can only state that
the CST will have, among its functions, that of updating the
roster of experts. One of three alternatives said that “The
CST shall propose the selection and evaluation criteria of
members in the roster of experts, take decisions on the
nomination of candidates and propose the removal of any
candidates on the basis of evaluation or assessment.” Some
delegates noted that only the COP has the authority to
determine who is placed on or removed from the roster.
The CST and ad hoc panels: Delegates pointed out that the
Convention provided for the COP, not the CST, to establish
ad hoc panels. Thus, the CST can only be “invited to advise”
the COP on this matter.
Relations with other conventions and international
organizations: It was generally accepted that the CST should
keep itself informed of the activities of the scientific
advisory committees of other conventions and of relevant
international organizations to ensure that its work does not
duplicate the work of these committees.
Areas of activities of the CST: There were objections to
listing activities because it is difficult to include all
the disciplines.
To conclude this agenda item, the Working Group introduced a
draft decision on the terms of reference that instructs the
Secretariat to prepare a document that will contain two
sections. The first section, which will be negotiated at
INCD-8, will cover the terms of reference of the CST based
on the discussions at this session and written comments that
are received before 15 October 1995. The second
section, which will only be discussed at INCD-8, will be a
compilation text on the ad hoc panels and roster of experts
as contained in the current CRP.1 document, as well as
additional comments received by 15 October 1995.
DRAFT RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
The discussions were based on document A/AC.241/38, which
was largely drawn from other Conventions and the CCD.
In Rule 2 on definitions, delegates agreed that a sub-
paragraph is needed referring to the date of entry into
force of the CCD. With respect to Rule 3, place of sessions,
Benin said the decision on where the COP holds its meetings
should be decided by the UNGA. Regarding Rule 4, dates of
sessions, Benin suggested that an extraordinary session be
held not more than 45 days after the submission of a written
request, instead of the proposed 90 days.
With respect to Rule 22, election of officers, Benin
suggested the addition to the Bureau of a seat for the small
island developing States. Iran wanted each geographical
region to have two representatives on the Bureau and
proposed that the Chair of the CST also have a seat on the
Bureau. The UK proposed that Rule 27 read: “Save as provided
in Rule 28-31, the present rules shall apply” to all bodies.
Protracted debate followed Canada’s proposal with respect to
Rule 47, which deals with the majority required to make
various decisions. Spain said the rule does not provide a
procedure where two alternatives have been proposed. The US,
supported by the UK, Japan and Canada, proposed that
financial decisions should be made by consensus. Uganda,
supported by Benin, said the proposal should be bracketed.
The Chair pointed out that the financial rules being dealt
with here are not the same as those under discussion in
Working Group I. The Secretariat clarified that the rule
suggests that on all matters of substance for which
consensus is not obtained, the decision shall be made by a
two-thirds majority vote, except in three instances: when
the Convention provides an alternative; in cases where the
financial rules provide guidance; and under the proposed
Rules of Procedure.
Rule 53 addresses the method of voting. Uganda said the rule
should be cross-referenced to Rule 47, paragraph 2. South
Africa said the drafting of paragraph 2 does not vest power
in the President of the COP to rule on the roll-call vote,
since a provision is made for secret ballot. A supplementary
procedure should be provided. Rule 56 provides for the
procedure of elections in the absence of a majority. Benin,
supported by Egypt, amended paragraph 1 so that if votes are
equally divided in the second and third ballots, the
President shall “draw lots to decide between the two
candidates.”
Japan suggested a reduction of the official languages to
three to reduce costs. This was contested by several
delegations including Spain, China, Benin, Cuba, Kazakhstan,
France and Mexico. On amendments to rules of procedure and
status, Benin proposed a deletion in Rule 62 of the words
“by consensus,” since other parts of the Convention do not
say that amendments have to be adopted by consensus. Uganda
suggested putting “by consensus” in brackets. The Chair
commented that if consensus is deleted, then Rule 47 will
apply instead and said that it makes sense to adopt the
Rules of Procedure by consensus.
Finally, the Group adopted the draft decision on the Rules
of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties. It states
that the INCD should use the draft Rules of Procedure of the
COP prepared by the Interim Secretariat (document
A/AC.241/38) as the basis for future negotiations and
requests the Secretariat to prepare a revised text for the
eighth session.
COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION AND REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION
The discussions on communication of information and review
of implementation were based on document A/AC.241/39. The
NGO network RIOD emphasized the importance of NGO
participation and contribution to the whole process of
communication of information. RIOD offered to prepare a list
of NGOs worldwide with relevant expertise, which could be
used by the Secretariat to serve on the Committees.
Objectives and criteria: Uzbekistan, supported by the
Netherlands and Iran, noted that unlike in other
environmental conventions, there is a distinction between
affected and unaffected countries and this must affect
information sharing. Canada, supported by the Netherlands
and Spain, noted the need for standardization of
communications and the importance of including analysis.
Communication from Parties: Kazakhstan suggested issuing a
bulletin based on the communication.
Other review materials: The UK, supported by Germany,
suggested the deletion of paragraph 13 because it is
undesirable to evaluate activities of sovereign States. He
applied the same argument to paragraph 14, on reviews by the
CST. Israel, supported by Germany, suggested that the
Parties themselves should provide summaries.
Guidelines for review materials: Benin suggested that the
Secretariat should prepare a reporting manual for review by
the Working Group and adoption at COP-1. He expressed
concern for the developing countries who need hardware and
software to be able to transfer quantitative data. On
paragraph 21, indicators and financial flows, the UK
suggested that the Secretariat should compile work on
already devised indicators. Regarding the financial flows,
the Secretariat could contact OECD, which has worked on
identifying such flows.
Timing of communication: Regarding paragraph 23, Benin,
supported by the UK, Portugal and China, suggested that
reports should be presented every two or four years. On
paragraph 24, rotation of communications, Benin, supported
by the UK, Israel and Peru, noted that it is important to
combine reporting from affected and non-affected countries.
The UK suggested 20 reports as the limit for consideration
at one meeting. Israel requested that the Secretariat
prepare proposal formats for consideration at INCD-8.
Modalities of review: Benin, supported by Sudan and the
Congo, suggested that review materials should be distributed
six weeks before the session of the COP. The UK doubted
whether the Permanent Secretariat should assist developing
countries in obtaining funds from donors. This might be a
role for the Global Mechanism.
Products of review: Benin suggested that the periodic report
should be published every two years.
The Group adopted a draft decision on communication of
information and review of implementation. The decision asks
for the submission of further views on procedures for
communication of information and review of implementation by
15 October 1995. The Secretariat should prepare a draft
decision of the Conference of the Parties on this subject,
based on document A/AC.241/39 and on comments and
suggestions from INCD-7 for consideration at INCD-8. It was
also decided that the Chair of INCD should send a letter to
the Chair of the GEF inquiring if developing countries could
get funding for communication of information.
CLOSING PLENARY
Kjelle’n called the final Plenary to order at 12:30 pm on
Thursday, 17 August 1995. After statements from several
delegates, the Chairs of the Working Groups presented their
reports.
WORKING GROUP I: The Chair, Mourad Ahmia, said the Group had
conducted six formal and two informal meetings that resulted
in the adoption of six draft decisions. Two draft decisions
were submitted by the G-77 and China -- the Permanent
Secretariat (A/AC.241/WG.I/(VII)/L.1) and identification of
an organization to house the Global Mechanism
(A/AC.241/WG.I/(VII)/L.2/Rev.1). Three were submitted by the
Working Group Chair: financial rules
(A/AC.241/WG.I/(VII)/L.3); programme and budget
(A/AC.241/WG.I/(VII)L.4); and location of the Permanent
Secretariat (A/AC.241/WG.I/(VII)L.5). He pointed out two
amendments. The second part of decision L.4 now reads,
“invites the Interim Secretariat to submit a revised version
of document A/AC.241/36 related to programme and budget at
the eighth session, taking into account the views expressed
by delegations at its seventh session, as well as views
communicated to the Interim Secretariat of the Convention.”
With respect to decision L.5, the Group had agreed to add
the phrase “as well as support provided for the INCD,” to
paragraph 10 of Annex II of document A/AC.241/35.
The sixth draft decision, also submitted by the Chair, deals
with the designation of a Permanent Secretariat and
arrangements for its functioning (A/AC.241/WG.I/(VII)/L.6).
This document decides to transmit to its next session the
draft decision L.1, submitted by the G-77 and China.
Delegates noted that the reference to the United Nations in
draft decision L.1 should be understood to mean the UN
system. Spain noted that one of the mandates given to the
Group was the election of a Vice-Chair for a WEOG
representative to the Bureau, which the Chair had not
reported on. Kjelle’n said he had not received any
nominations so the issue would be addressed at the next
session.
All the draft decisions were adopted by the Plenary without
further comments.
WORKING GROUP II: The Chair, Takao Shibata, said the Group's
deliberations had resulted in three draft decisions: on the
draft rules of procedure for the COP
(A/AC.241/WG.II/(VII)/L.1); on communication of information
and review of implementation (A/AC.241/WG.II/(VII)/L.2); and
on organization of scientific and technological cooperation
(A/AC.241/WG.II/(VII)/L.3).
Shibata pointed out that the Group had also made a
recommendation for the INCD Chair, which was not in the form
of a draft decision. The Group requests Kjelle’n to explore
the possibility of financial assistance from the GEF for the
compilation and communication of information. This
recommendation was considered within the context of draft
decision L.2.
The Plenary adopted all the draft decisions and noted that
Kjelle’n will report his findings with respect to the GEF at
the next session.
DATES AND VENUES OF FUTURE SESSIONS OF THE INCD: The Chair
then introduced draft decision A/AC.241/L.27, which was his
revision of a G-77 and China draft on future sessions of the
INCD. He said it is highly desirable that the INCD give full
recommendations to the General Assembly on when and where
future sessions should be held.
The decision bears in mind the need for sufficient
extrabudgetary resources to support developing country
participation and expresses concern at the present level of
the Special Voluntary Fund. It then appeals to governments
and organizations to make contributions and calls for a
report to the General Assembly on the extrabudgetary funds.
The decision recommends to the General Assembly that two
sessions of the INCD, each of up to two weeks duration,
should be held in 1996 -- the eighth session in Geneva from
5-16 February and the ninth session in New York from 3-13
September. The decision also recommends that the General
Assembly authorize two additional sessions, of up to two
weeks duration, in 1997 -- the tenth session in New York
from 6-17 January and the eleventh session in April, the
exact dates and venue to be decided at a later stage. It
requests the General Assembly to review the financial
situation of the funds in light of the report and to take
appropriate decisions, and it suggests two dates for the
first COP in June or August 1997.
Tunisia said the paragraph asking the General Assembly (GA)
to review the funding situation should invite the GA “to
take appropriate decision regarding future sessions of the
Committee” rather than unspecified decisions. The Chair said
the language was aimed at allowing the GA to take broader
action to support the trust funds, not only to decide on
dates. Benin said the Chair’s wording reflected the workings
of the GA. Japan said the amendment could question all
future sessions, which could undermine the support of
donors. He proposed deleting the paragraph.
The Chair said it is important that governments should not
have any doubt on the venue of the next session so that
donations are possible. He appealed to Tunisia to withdraw
his amendment. India said the Chair’s language speaks of
appropriate decisions, not excluding the venue and dates,
but that it should not specifically link availability of
funds with length and venue.
The Chair made a statement for the record renewing his
appeal for contributions, promising the review of funds and
an additional appeal to governments, if necessary, and
explaining that the decision referred to a review of the
financial situation of the funds but also to proposals on a
programme of work. He asked Tunisia to accept his assurance.
The decision was adopted, after which Tunisia, supported by
Pakistan, made a statement for the record. He said his
interpretation of paragraph 5 is that the GA will take an
appropriate decision including on the future sessions of
INCD, as well as the substance and venue, depending on the
contributions to the Voluntary Fund and with respect to the
participation of developing countries.
ADOPTION OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR INCD-8: Colombia, on
behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, suggested
that item 3, urgent action for Africa and action taken in
other regions should be subdivided into two. Benin went on
to suggest “Special action: a) urgent action for Africa; and
b) Action taken in other regions.” With this amendment, the
draft provisional agenda was adopted.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ITS SEVENTH SESSION: The report
(A/AC.241/L.28) was presented by Vice-Chair Jose’ Urrutia
(Peru), on behalf of INCD Rapporteur Nikita Glasovsky
(Russian Federation). The report was adopted with the
amendment that a third Vice-Chair will be elected at the
eighth session.
Finally, the Chair made minor amendments to his conclusions
(A/AC.241/CRP.15) in paragraph 5. The paragraph deals with
the implementation of Resolution 5.1 on Urgent Action for
Africa and underlines the global character of the problem of
desertification and drought. This led the Latin American and
Caribbean countries to question whether the global nature of
the Convention was properly emphasized and stressed that if
the CCD was to deal with Africa solely, they would have
problems ratifying the Convention. After some discussion,
the document was accepted.
Some delegates made closing statements. South Africa made a
statement on behalf of the Temperate Southern Hemisphere
Countries on the Environment, known as the Valdivia group,
which includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, New
Zealand, South Africa and Uruguay. The Group was formerly
established in Chile on 10 March 1995 to foster exchanges on
scientific and environmental matters. In view of the
importance of traditional knowledge, NGOs and CBOs were
crucial to the process, thus the group will be working in
collaboration with them.
The Sudan Environmentalist Society, on behalf of women,
appealed for: women to participate at all levels in the
preparation of NAPs; the allocation of designated funds by
potential Parties for women’s programmes; and increased
numbers of women in the official delegations at INCD-8. She
expressed disappointment at the lack of a female member of
the Bureau. A representative of the RIOD NGO network urged
governments to consider providing NGOs access to funding
through the Global Mechanism. He also requested that the
Secretariat should raise funds for NGO participation in the
INCD during the interim period.
The Chair concluded INCD-7 by noting that: the purpose of
this work is to improve conditions of the men and women
living in the dryland areas; this session has resulted in
negotiation texts for INCD-8; and it is encouraging to see
so much action in the interim period, making the CCD a
living convention. The four pillars of the Convention are:
its participatory character; the creation of partnerships;
the multidisciplinary approach; and the aim to fully use the
scientific and technological knowledge available. Finally,
the CCD is an important part of the Rio process. He closed
the session at 3:30 pm.
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF INCD-7
In working smoothly through a modest agenda, INCD-7 achieved
its goals. As Chair Bo Kjelle’n explained in his opening and
closing remarks, the idea in Nairobi was to make progress
for upcoming sessions, to take the next measured steps
toward a first COP that is at least a year and as many as
four more meetings away. Mostly procedural decisions
resulted, as delegates gently broached dialogues on
potentially difficult areas such as the Global Mechanism and
financial rules that most agree cannot be negotiated fully
until closer to the first session of the COP. Defining parts
of the Committee on Science and Technology and reviewing
early efforts to implement the resolution on Urgent Action
for Africa, delegates and NGOs also opened conversations on
more concrete issues of implementation, participation and
partnership.
This session was the second one to be held in the interim
period before the Convention comes into force. At this
stage, often referred to as “post-agreement negotiations,"
continued dialogue can push forward the Convention to ensure
that the negotiated outcome is well implemented. Thus, the
objectives of INCD-7 were to follow up on the quick
implementation of urgent action in Africa and not to lose
momentum in the interim period. While most agreed that
continuity in negotiations has value, the relaxed pace of
negotiations — INCD-7 wrapped up in about eight unhurried
working days — left some delegates wondering whether less
frequent or shorter sessions are in order.
Difficulties appeared on only two issues: finances and the
activities under the Convention outside Africa. The lack of
firm donor commitments raised delicate questions about the
availability of funds and where the next INCD will be held.
And throughout the negotiations, non-African delegates were
skeptical of how far the CCD would go toward its global
objectives.
THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: The greatest
strides at INCD-7 were taken in discussions on the informal
paper on the terms of reference of the Committee on Science
and Technology (CST), the roster of independent experts and
ad hoc panels. These negotiations were limited to dealing
with the CST, because the decisions on the roster and panels
are not required at the first COP. While there was
satisfaction with the fact that a negotiating text is
available for INCD-8, some issues remain to be settled.
First, opinions differ on the size of the CST. A number of
delegations say that the CST membership cannot be limited,
based on CCD language that the CST is open to the
participation of all Parties. Some are arguing that it
should be a small group of 15 persons, three from each
region. They fear that in trying to establish a
multidisciplinary and representative group, the Committee in
the end will become bureaucratic, politicized and much too
large. That would leave substantive work to the ad hoc
panels and could make the CST itself superfluous. NGOs
suggested that their knowledge and experience at the
community level were essential to the CST’s effectiveness
and the incorporation of participatory practices into the
CST’s work. Some delegations stressed that if NGOs are to be
involved, their representatives must provide some
substantive knowledge and not participate only because they
live in the field. The size of the CST, however, can only be
appropriately determined once its functions are clear.
Another point of divergence emerged with regard to the
relationship between the CST and the COP. All agree that the
CST is a subsidiary body to the COP, but some favor tying
the CST closely to instructions from the COP, whereas others
want to give the CST more flexibility and independence.
There are two outstanding questions: how much initiative
should the CST be able to take and should the CST carry out
its own research or simply collect research results,
summarize and disseminate them.
The critique was also voiced that the comments at this
session on the terms of reference of the CST were mostly of
a legal character, copying text from the Convention, and
that persons with scientific competence need to make
comments of a more substantive nature. This opportunity will
be provided. It was agreed that views and suggestions about
the text should be made available to the Secretariat by 15
October 1995. The idea to have a CST was driven largely by
the presence of similar bodies in the Climate Change and
Biodiversity Conventions. But the complex interface between
the social and scientific causes of desertification will
require a unique and innovative approach to determine the
CST’s character, composition and functions.
URGENT ACTION FOR AFRICA: Delegates and NGOs had an
opportunity to share experiences on the first concrete
attempts to implement the Convention. Just as important were
discussions on the financial aspects of implementation.
Donor countries expressed a willingness to support
activities under the Convention, along with some surprise
that available resources had not been fully utilized.
Affected countries said they were disappointed by poor
responses to their efforts to combat desertification. They
felt the field offices of donor countries had not yet heard
the message that the CCD had their countries’ support.
Yet the difference in perceptions seemed to raise awareness
in both groups of where the communication gaps lie. It
points to the need for donors and developing countries to
find new ways of working on relevant development activities
and to seek agreement on which activities are worthy of
support. NGOs and developing country delegates stressed that
money was needed — and worthwhile — to initiate and support
process-oriented activities. Some donor country delegates
said it would take some time for their agencies to adapt to
the new demands of the CCD. In spite of the initial counter
accusations, this discussion seems to have been catalytic to
in-the-corridors partnership building between all players.
PREPARATION FOR THE FIRST CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES: Almost
all the issues under this agenda item were addressed in
decisions requesting the Interim Secretariat to prepare or
revise reports. On designation of a Permanent Secretariat,
financial rules, the Global Mechanism and programme and
budget, Working Group I Chair Mourad Ahmia frequently
reminded delegates that their discussions were preliminary,
that the task was not to make major decisions immediately.
The Working Groups occasionally spoke of delaying
reconsideration of certain issues until INCD-9 or 10.
Several factors account for the deliberate pace. One was the
overall objective of INCD-7 to move toward negotiating texts
without actually beginning to write most texts. Another is
the state of ratifications. With only five of the required
50 countries having ratified the CCD, all delegates are
aware that they cannot rush decisions that ultimately must
be made at COP-1. If the CCD comes into force earlier than
expected, the INCD’s pace would likely pick up accordingly.
Finally, there is the relationship with negotiations of
other conventions, particularly the Climate Change and
Biodiversity Conventions. Delegates refer often to positions
in major procedural areas from those negotiations. And
despite repeated proclamations that the CCD is on a par
with those conventions, it may end up following decisions
where negotiators have the additional strength of working
under treaties already in force.
Those areas where conflicts were not completely contained in
INCD-7 point to future debates in the CCD’s future. Among
them are the level and type of activity in the Global
Mechanism. Donor countries are fairly unified in contending
that the Global Mechanism should facilitate but not manage
or raise funds. Some developing countries and NGOs want a
more activist GM. Another issue relates to contributions to
the Convention budget: which will be voluntary, which
compulsory and on what scale. The voting procedure,
especially regarding financial decisions, was another area
of clear disagreement at INCD-7. OECD countries called for
decisions by consensus while developing countries proposed
two-thirds majority voting as a fallback. All of these, in
addition to unaddressed details of the programme and budget,
will return as the INCD moves beyond procedure and toward
the first COP.
FREQUENCY AND EFFICIENCY OF MEETINGS: The pace set during
the negotiation of the CCD, which was concluded in a year,
slowed down considerably at INCD-6 and INCD-7. This may seem
natural since the negotiations have entered into a second
stage, but some delegations felt that the work of INCD-6 and
INCD-7 could have been done at one session or during two
one-week meetings. Others felt that it was necessary to meet
twice not to lose the momentum of the negotiations, so as to
avoid what happened at the first Conference of the Parties
of the Biodiversity Convention, which suffered from the fact
that delegates met only twice during the two-and-one-half
year interim period. Monitoring the implementation of urgent
action for Africa and action in other regions provides
additional grounds for frequent meetings. Regarding next
year’s meetings, some delegations felt that one meeting
would be sufficient, while others feel that since texts are
going to be negotiated during 1996, two ten-day sessions
would be necessary. In document A/AC.241/L.27, the INCD
“recommends to the General Assembly that two sessions be
held in 1996, each of up to two weeks duration.” It also
plans for two sessions in 1997.
FINANCIAL SITUATION (FUNDING): At every session the funding
of the work of the INCD has been discussed, but at this
meeting the funding situation reached a new level of
concern. It is noteworthy that the last item addressed at
INCD-7, the venue of the next meeting, was actually a
strategy session on funding. If funds are not available to
pay for developing country participation, the INCD may move
its session. But delaying a decision also risks already
committed funds.
Even if some pledges were made, the lack of funding can be
precarious because of the slow pace of communication and
transfers in the UN budget system. The funds may not reach
the Secretariat until February 1996, when INCD-8 is
scheduled to meet. In view of the fact that INCD-8 will
entail negotiations, some delegates say that the crucial
issue is to garner commitments and pledges so that the
Interim Secretariat can prepare in good time.
While some delegates seem satisfied with the Secretariat’s
performance, others feel that its work could be carried out
in a more efficient and less costly manner, for instance by
holding meetings in Geneva where the Secretariat is based.
Some feel that the work of the Secretariat should be funded
by the regular budget of the UN and argue that they have
already paid for it. They prefer to fund actual projects in
the field. Others look at the list of donors and note that a
few donors fund this process while others take an active
role in the negotiations, but do not contribute to the
funding. This triggered a debate on where INCD-8 should be
held. Some argue that it is most economical to hold the
session in Geneva, as planned, whereas some developing
countries prefer New York. They already have representation
there, so less money would be spent on airline tickets and
hotels. This presents another problem: the alternative
delegates might lack expertise on crucial subjects, which
could further slow the post-agreement negotiation process.
THE GLOBAL CHARACTER OF THE CONVENTION: Lingering concern of
Latin American and Asian delegates over their lack of
priority in the eyes of the CCD returned to INCD-7. As the
session was concluding, almost every delegation from Latin
America expressed its dissatisfaction with the Chair’s
conclusions, so this debate too will likely continue.
As at the end of INCD-1 and other meetings during the
process of negotiating the CCD, the Latin American countries
feared that the awareness of the global character of the
problem of desertification would be lost if implementation
of the Convention focuses on Africa alone. Latin Americans
consistently warned against overlooking desertification
problems in other parts of the world because of the possible
political consequences. If governments outside Africa do not
perceive equitable treatment of their concerns, they may
have problems ratifying the Convention. This could prolong
the interim period before the CCD comes into force. If the
non-Africans are competing for support by withholding
ratification, the strategy could be self-defeating. The
other regions will gain priority once the CCD enters into
force. The resolution on Urgent Action for Africa will
remain in place regardless.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD
NGO MEETINGS: The Asian Regional Conference of the RIOD
network will be held in Islamabad, Pakistan, in mid-January
1996. The National NGO meeting for Pakistan will be held in
Karachi in mid-November. For specific dates and other
information on these or other RIOD activities in Asia,
please contact the RIOD regional focal point, Tanveer Arif,
Society for Conservation and Protection of Environment
(SCOPE), B-150, Block 13-D/2, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi-
75300, Pakistan, Tel. 92-21-4965042 or 4976459, Fax 92-21-
4964001.
The Latin American Regional Conference of RIOD will take
place in November in Puno, Peru. For dates and other details
on this meeting, contact the RIOD regional focal point for
Latin America and the Caribbean, Juan Palao, CAME, Jr.
Arequipa, No. 120 3rd, Piso “B”, Puno, Peru, Tel. 054-
355481, Fax 054-355482 or 352701
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES: The Maghreb Arab Union is planning to
hold its meeting in Tunis, Tunisia in November 1995. The
Southern Africa Development Community also plans to hold a
meeting in from 16-18 January 1996. A Gulf Council (Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and United Arab
Emirates) and Lebanon, Syria and Yemen meeting is planned
for October 1995. The meetings are aimed initiating the
process towards the preparation of the subregional action
programmes.
The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment
(AMCEN) will be holding its next meeting on 30 October to 3
November 1995, in Harare, Zimbabwe. This will be preceded by
an ADALCO meeting on 27-20 October 1995.
A Latin American environment ministers meeting is planned
for September in Havana, Cuba, to examine implementation of
the regional annex. Latin American countries are also
planning a regional meeting 24-26 January 1996, either in
Mexico or Argentina.
SECRETARIAT ACTIVITIES: The Secretariat will mainly focus on
awareness raising in Africa. If funds are made available,
subregional consultations will be undertaken in the Latin
American and Asian regions. The Secretariat will continue
translating the publication, Down to Earth, into the main
languages spoken in the most affected countries.
FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN: A Bureau meeting of the
INCD is expected to take place during the Fourth World
Conference on Women in Beijing from 4-15 September 1995.
INCD-8: The next session of the INCD is tentatively
scheduled for 5-16 February 1996 in Geneva. The final
decision on the dates, length and venue of INCD-8 will be
taken by the UN General Assembly when it meets in New York
this autumn.
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (c)
is written and edited by Elisabeth
Corell , Wagaki Mwangi
and Steve Wise
. French translation by Mongi Gadhoum
. The managing editor is Langston James
Goree VI "Kimo" . The sustaining donors
of the Bulletin are the International Institute for
Sustainable Development , the United
Nations Environment Programme and the Pew Charitable Trusts
through the Pew Global Stewardship Initiative. General
support for the Bulletin for 1995 is provided by the United
Kingdom, Switzerland, GTZ, and the World Bank. Partial
funding for this volume of the Bulletin has been provided by
the United States Department of Agriculture and by ACCT for
the French translation. The authors can be contacted at
their e-mail addresses and by phone and fax at +1-212-888-
2737. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th
Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-
7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in Earth
Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders.
Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in
other publications with appropriate citation. Electronic
versions of the Bulletin are automatically sent to e-mail
distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found
on the gopher at and in searchable
hypertext through the Linkages WWW-server at
on the Internet.
The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced,
reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the
APC networks and the ENB listserver, without specific
permission from the International Institute for Sustainable
Development. This limitation includes distribution via
Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print
media and broadcast. For more information, send a message to
.